Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
at the u.n. yesterday u.s. ambassador to the u.n., susan rice, said the resolution would only delay the peace process. >> today's unfortunate and counterproductive resolution places further obstacles in the path to peace. today's vote should not be misconstrued by any as constituting eligibility for u.n. membership. it does not. this resolution does not establish that palestine is a state. >> a leading concern for israel is that the palestinians could now use the status to access the u.n.'s international criminal court, pressing it to investigate israel's practices in the occupied territories. >>> in washington, lawmakers are already threatening to cut millions of dollars in aid to the palestinians should they use their new status to go after israel. >>> the united states senate is ready to consider broad new economic sanctions against iran. and they are aimed at choking off that country's energy and shipping sectors that are believed to keep its nuclear program afloat. yesterday the u.s. gave tehran a march deadline to begin cooperating with a u.n. nuclear investigation. the agency
namely john mccain and lindsey graham for the criticism leveled at susan rice. the u.n. secretary, shortly after the attacks that resulted in the death of four americans, she went on "meet the press" and other sunday shows and said what happened in benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest that morphed in to something else and resulted in the death of those americans. republicans attacking ever since. but now, as susan rice's name floated as a successor to hillary clinton as secretary of state, mccain and graham taken out after susan rice. that, no question about it, it came from the heart and raised the ire of president obama. here's what he had to say. >> if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to -- to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they th
that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence she had received and to besmeerch her separation is outrageous and, you know, we're after an election now. i think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in mbenbenghazi and ha to cooperate in any ways that congress wants. we have provided every bit of information that we have. and we'll continue to provide information and we've got a full-blown investigation and all that information will be discorged to congress. i don't think there's a debate in this country with four americans killed that's a problem. we have to get to the bottom of it and there needs to be accountability. we've got to bring those who carried it out to justice. they won't get any debate from me on that. when they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me. and should i choose, if i think that she would be the best person to serve america, in the capacity, the state d
haass, also an emergency meeting of the u.n. security council last night. sift through this for us. how big is this? how significant is this in the middle east right now? >> well, it's big for lots of reasons, because it's not happening in isolation. one is you have the largest military clashes between israel and hamas in, what, four year now, and it's not going to stop. at times it doesn't matter in the middle east exactly why things begin. over the last few months there have been hundreds of rocket attacks, now this, then retaliation. it just happens. second of all, it's happening in the absence of anything political. there's no dialogue going on whatsoever between israelis and palestinians. this can't substitute for this. thirdly, egyptians withdrew their ambassador. since 1967 and really since not long after that when sadat, the relationship has been peaceful. it's been codified by treaty. it is the basis of peace in the middle east to the extent it exists at all. what this shows is we can no longer take that for granted. now that you've had the political change in egypt, you can't
to jerusalem to help secure a truce before israel launches a ground invasion. u.n. secretary-general ban ki moon is also there and nine arab leaders are showing solidarity with the palestinians. a big change since the last serious fighting four years ago. earlier today at the u.n., the united states blocked a joint statement condemning the conflict because it didn't mention the root cause which the u.s. says is hamas missile attacks. nbc's martin fletcher is in tel aviv and martin, if there's a talk of cease-fire, what is israel doing dropping leaflets? >> reporter: that's a good question. israel actually -- it has not said that the cease-fire is as far advanced as the arabs have. israel is insisting on a long-term solution and they haven't got that yet. so what they're doing is still preparing their way for a possible ground invasion if these talks of a truce fall through. so israel's army is still poised to invade and they have dropped leaflets in certain areas of gaza, eltelling people to stay away from certain roads, particularly in the north, where the israeli army has gone in first wh
day parade. live for you along the parade route. >>> the president is behind her, now u.n. ambassador susan rice defendinging her record to critics taking her to task on benghazi. will it be enough? >>> celebrations in gaza. so far, the day-old cease-fire is holding but the real work begins. and that fragile cease-fire between israel and hamas militants brokered by the u.s. government and egyptian president morsi. it is less than 24 hours old. there is deep mistrust. civilians on both sides hoping the agreement will bring a permanent end to the deadly air strikes and rocket fire. in gaza with the i have latest, eamon, good morning. >> reporter: good morning. for the first time in nine days the people of gaza were able to go about their business as usual in a place that usually is not very normal. so, for the first time they were able to wake up today after cease-fire declared last evening and shops and stores reopened people going back to their homes. throughout this conflict 9,000 or so palestinians were displaced from their homes. they took up shelters in u.n. schools. today for the
committee. congressman, good morning. >> good morning, chris. >> u.n. representative cole sent a letter to president morsi asking him to refrain from giving hamas cover to intensify its attacks by allowing egyptian delegations to visit gaza. of course, morsi has been a major player in these truce negotiations. do you think he's sending a mixed message? >> well, he is sending a mixed message. you know, i hope that president morsi is able to play a constructive role. but when high-level delegations of egyptians go into gaza under the pretense of a cease-fire and then terrorist groups violate that cease fire, if israel were to defend itself and members of the delegation was tragically hurt in that attack, we do not want that to be used as a pretense to violate the egyptian/israeli peace treaty. one other thing on this, chris. look, there's a fundamental truth here. i was on the border of gaza and israel in august of 2005 when israel unilaterally and without any preconditions left gaza. actually went in and asked jews this in there to leave. they said here is the land, build something with
was removed from u.n. ambassador susan rice's talking points. in the days following the deadly assault, rice said administration believed the attack was a reaction to an anti-islamic video. but, an associated press report says former cia director david petraeus testified on friday that he believed all along that the attack on the consulate was a terrorist strike. >> so let's -- before we set up these clips, let's make sure we set this up right. so we've been hearing, mark halperin, that susan rice said what she said because she was reading straight intel from the cia. we find out from david tet pet trace, this isn't true. that immediately david petraeus and intel officials knew this was an al qaeda attack. right? >> it's still kind of confusing. >> i'm basing that on "the new york times" reports and everything that i read through the weekend. >> totality of the reporting is there was another line coming out of the closed hearing was that they didn't want to say everything they knew in public because they didn't want the terrorists to know that tus government was on to them. >> i heard that.
of mass destruction. and the moon landing was real. and fema is not building concentration camps. and un election observers are not taking over texas. and moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as communism. listen, last night was a good night for liberals and for democrats for very obvious reasons, but it was also, possibly, a good night for this country as a whole. because in this country, we have a two-party system in government. and the idea is supposed to be that the two sides, both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country. they both propose possible solutions to our real problems. and we debate between those possible solutions. and by the process of debate, we pick the best idea. that competition between good ideas from both sides about real problems in the real country should result in our country having better choices, better options, than if only one side is really working on the hard stuff. and the if the republican party and the conservative movem
are talking about is who is going to replace hillary clinton. the two names who have voted is u.n. ambassador susan rice and john kerry. i have no problem with susan rice. i think she's fantastic and unfortunate how she's been treated recently. i tell you, john kerry during this campaign has been fantastic in his debate prep with the president. i thought his speech as the dp nc was brilliant, and i think he would be a terrific diplomat. there's concerns that if he was nominated then the senate -- his senate seat would be open and scott brown could have another shot at getting into the senate. i don't think that would be the worst thing in the world for the president, especially since we picked up seats this time around. scott brown, as a republican who may actually across the aisle, could actually serve as a useful political tool for the president. that will be interesting to watch. the other one, of course, is treasury secretary time geithner leaving. one of the outside names that's been floated is cheryl sandberg, coo of facebook. she's the first one and she's had a terrific choice. another
are john kerry and u.n. ambassador susan rice, who has been caught up in the questions about benghazi. so if hillary clinton does leave, does that put more pressure on the president to go in a different direction other than susan rice? >> well, i'm only speculating now, because my reporting on this dates back to well before the election when i got a little bit focused there. i will say that if you talk to people in democratic establishment and political establishment on the hill and in national security circles, you do find that neither of those candidates is seen right now as a perfect choice. there are drawbacks to both of them. ambassador rice has a lot of supporters first and foremost, the president to be sure. controversy over her public statements about benghazi give people pause about whether she's the right person with a confirmation process over, whether she's the right person for the job. in the case of senator kerry, there's doubts from some people about whether he'd be the perfect secretary of state. he was passed over four years ago for secretary clinton. if you took him out
for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. >>> u.n. ambassador and secretary of state front-runner susan rice on capitol hill today meeting with two more republican senators. susan collins from the armed services committee and bob corker of the foreign relations committee. following the meeting, senator collins echos the comments of colleagues that met with rice, she expressed concern of how the events played out in benghazi before and after the september 11th consulate attacks. the senator also weighed in on her choice to replace hillary clinton and it's not susan rice. >> i think john kerry would be an excellent appointment and would be easily confirmed by his colleagues. >> following his meeting, senator corker called on the president to reconsider nominating rice. >> all of us here hold the secretary of state to a very different standard than most cabinet members. there's a handful of people that the president surrounds himself with that all of us hold to a very different level and secretary of state no doubt is one of those. >> so let's put
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12